Alternative camera tracking systems: Asus Xtion Pro and structure.io

Asus have an alternative to Kinect One and Playstation 4 cameras:
http://www.asus.com/Multimedia/Xtion_PRO/

Also for mobile devices especially iPAD
http://structure.io/getstarted

While the Structure Sensor has been carefully designed to work exceptionally well with iOS devices, it has also been designed to work with a wide range of other devices and platforms, including Android devices, and Windows, OS X and Android laptop and desktop PCs.

To use the Structure Sensor with any of these alternative platforms, you will need the USB Hacker Cable as well as OpenNI 2 drivers, which can be downloaded on our OpenNI 2 page. More information on using the Structure Sensor with OpenNI 2 drivers can be found in the Structure Sensor and SDK Forums

OpenNI, not sure if it is actively developed. Refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenNI

After the acquisition of PrimeSense by Apple, it was announced that the website OpenNI.org would be shut down on April 23, 2014.[7] Immediately after the shutdown, organizations that used OpenNI subsequently preserved documentation and binaries for future use, such as the page at Structure.io

PS4 camera appears to work with Mac OS X

As an alternative to Kinect One (which requires Windows 8) the PS4 eye camera has some interesting features/functions although it is lower res and does not have an Infra Red (IR) blaster..
And can cost $85 AUD or cheaper online or via JB hifi…

How does it compare to Microsoft’s Kinect One camera?
Review in 2013:http://au.ign.com/blogs/finalverdict/2013/11/02/xbox-one-vs-playstation-4-kinect-20-vs-playstation-4-camera
Review in 2014: http://www.techradar.com/au/news/gaming/consoles/ps4-vs-xbox-720-which-is-better-1127315/5#articleContent
A not so positive review: http://www.techradar.com/au/reviews/gaming/gaming-accessories/playstation-4-camera-1202008/review

One possible future use for PS4 eye camera, the VR Project Morpheus: http://www.techradar.com/au/reviews/gaming/project-morpheus-1235379/review

http://www.psdevwiki.com/ps4/PlayStation_4_Camera

Available functions

  • photo, video
  • voice commands (available as well with an earset with microphone)
  • depth calculation/imaging
  • pad, move, face, head and hand recognition/tracking
  • one of the cameras can be used for generating the video image, with the other used for motion tracking.

http://www.psdevwiki.com/ps4/Talk:PlayStation_4_Camera

Features (Could be used for eye tracking..)

  • automatic black level calibration (ABLC) support 2×2 binning
  • programmable controls for frame rate, mirror and flip, standard serial SCCB interface cropping and windowing
  • image quality controls: lens correction and defective pixel canceling two-lane MIPI/LVDS serial output interface
  • embedded 256 bits one-time programmable (OTP)
  • memory for part identification, etc.
  • supports output formats: 8/10/12-bit RAW RGB on-chip phase lock loop (PLL)(MIPI/LVDS)
  • supports horizontal and vertical sub-sampling programmable I/O drive capability
  • supports images sizes: 1280×800, 640×400, and 320×200
  • built-in 1.5V regulator for core
  • support alternate frame HDR / line HDR
  • fast mode switching

What can you do with it?
http://ps4eye.tumblr.com
/
“Bigboss (@psxdev) has successfully streamed video data from the PS4 camera to OS X!”
Picture at https://twitter.com/psxdev/status/439787015606136833

Drivers for PS4
http://bigboss-eyetoy.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/ps4eyecam-released.html
Links to https://github.com/bigboss-ps3dev/PS4EYECam/
“It is the first public driver for PlayStation 4 Camera licensed under gpl.”

Historical
PS3Eye for Mac: http://webcam-osx.sourceforge.net/

Kinect SDK 2 FINGER TRACKING (etc) for Desktops & Large Screens (VR)

We are trying to create some applications/extensions that allow people to interact naturally with 3D built environments on a desktop by pointing at or walking up to objects in the digital environment:

or a large surround screen (figure below is of the Curtin HIVE):

using a Kinect (SDK 1 or 2) for tracking. Ideally we will be able to:

  1. Green screen narrator into a 3D environment (background removal).
  2. Control an avatar in the virtual environment using speaker’s gestures.
  3. Trigger slides and movies inside a UNITY environment via speaker finger-pointing Ideally the speaker could also change the chronology of built scene with gestures (or voice), could alter components or aspects of buildings, move or replace parts or components of the environment. Possibly also use Leap SDK (improved).
  4. Better employ the curved screen so that participants can communicate with each other.

We can have a virtual/tracked hand point to objects creating an interactive slide presentation to the side of the Unity environment. As objects are pointed at information appears in a camera window/pane next to the 3D digital environment, or, these info windows are triggered on approach.

A commercial solution to Kinect tracking for use inside Unity environments is http://zigfu.com/ but they only appear to be working with SDK 1. Which is a bit of a problem, to rephrase:

Problem: All solutions seem to be Kinect SDK 1 and SDK 2 only appears to work on Windows 8. We use Windows 7 and Mac OS X (10.10.1).

So if anyone can help me please reply/email or comment on this post.

And for those doing similar things, here are some links I found on creating Kinect-tracked environments:

KINECT SDK 1
Kinect with MS-SDK is a set of Kinect examples, utilizing three major scripts and test models. It demonstrates how to use Kinect-controlled avatars or Kinect-detected gestures in your own Unity projects. This asset uses the Kinect SDK/Runtime provided by Microsoft. URL: http://rfilkov.com/2013/12/16/kinect-with-ms-sdk/
And here is “one more thing”: A great Unity-package for designers and developers using Playmaker, created by my friend Jonathan O’Duffy from HitLab Australia and his team of talented students. It contains many ready-to-use Playmaker actions for Kinect and a lot of example scenes. The package integrates seamlessly with ‘Kinect with MS-SDK’ and ‘KinectExtras with MsSDK’-packages.

NB
KinectExtras for Kinect v2 is part of the “Kinect v2 with MS-SDK“. This package here and “Kinect with MS-SDK” are for Kinect v1 only.

BACKGROUND REMOVAL (leaves just player)
rfilkov.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/kinectextras-with-mssdk/

FINGER TRACKING (Not good on current Kinect for various reasons)

  1. http://www.ar-tracking.com/products/interaction-devices/fingertracking/
  2. Not sure if SDK 1 but FingerTracker is a Processing library that does real-time finger-tracking from depth images: http://makematics.com/code/FingerTracker/
  3. Finger tracking for interaction in augmented environments: Finger tracking for interaction in augmented environments OR https://www.ims.tuwien.ac.at/publications/tr-1882-00e.pdf by K Dorfmüller-Ulhaas – a finger tracker that allows gestural interaction and is sim- ple, cheap, fast … is based on a marked glove, a stereoscopic tracking system and a kinematic 3-d …
  4. Video of “Finger tracking with Kinect SDK” see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrUW-Z3fHkk
  5. Finger tracking using Java http://www.java2s.com/Open-Source/CSharp_Free_Code/Xbox/Download_Finger_Tracking_with_Kinect_SDK_for_XBOX.htm
  6. Microsoft can do it: http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/08/kinect-for-windows-finger-tracking/ Might need to contact them though for info

HAND TRACKING FOR USE WITH AN OCULUS RIFT
http://nimblevr.com/ For use with rift
Download nimble VR http://nimblevr.com/download.html Win 8 required but has mac binaries

cfp: Digital Densities: examining relations between material cultures and digital data

27th March 2015, The University of Melbourne
Hosted by the Digital Humanities Incubator (DHI) in the School of Culture and Communication, University of Melbourne. The ‘material turn’ in Humanities research has seen a celebration of the physicality of things and a revaluing of the weight of experience, including in the case of digital data. In his key text Mechanisms, Matthew Kirschenbaum identifies a need to reassess theories of electronic textuality in light of “the material matrix governing writing and inscription in all forms: erasure, variability, repeatability and survivability” (2008, xii). In the academy, this material turn co-exists with an increasing utilization of digital resources and digital methodologies to preserve and disseminate the findings of our research. These shifts are accompanied by divergent affective responses that include an interest in tactile sensations and a mourning of the loss of the object. There is a new awareness of the forms of lightness or weight attached to the transmission of ideas in and beyond our research communities; the densities of our culture and scholarship. The ever more numerous moments of contact between material culture and digital methodologies open up debates that are of both practical and theoretical significance. We invite papers that explore any aspect of the intersection between digital and material cultures. We warmly encourage proposals from scholars with a range of disciplinary backgrounds as well as from archival practitioners. Topics and questions to be addressed might include:

What are the critical practices in the intersection of digital humanities and the material turn? Where are the material traces in the digital? What labour is involved in the transitions between the material and the digital?How do material and digital objects, practices and networks interrelate? What is lost in translations from material to digital, and what is gained? What is it that archives seek, and are able, to preserve? What are the political and territorial disputes of material conservation? How are creativity, meaning and contemporary resonance expressed in museums, libraries and archives? What material, theoretical and ethical challenges are posed by the collection and use of data? Case studies of particular archival collections and the relationships they create between the material and the digital. What are the opportunities and limitations for pedagogy? How have contemporary representations imagined the digital transformation of contemporary cultures?

The symposium will run for one day. Proposals for 20 minute papers should contain an abstract of 150 words, as well as your paper title, a short biography (100 words), institutional affiliation and contact details. Proposals should be submitted by 4th February 2015to amandat

Of Historic Units and Cypriot heritage

Interesting. I wonder if Historical Units for 3D digital models could be a spatial envelope (or more than one)..

Stuart Dunn

The team behind the Heritage Gazetteer of Cyprus were in Nicosia last week, presenting a near-final form of the project to an audience of experts in Cypriot history and archaeology. The resource the project has been tasked by the A. G. Leventis Foundation to produce is very nearly complete, and will be launched to the world in January 2015.

The HGC has always been about the names of places, and how these names change over time. As I have blogged about previously, and as we outlined in our presentation to the International Cartographic Association’s Digital Approaches workshop in Budapest in September, this name-driven approach, which is based on three layers of data – modern toponyms, ‘Historical Units’ and ‘Archaeological Entities’ represents the limits of the current project. However what it cannot do raises important intellectual questions about how digital representations of place are organized and presented online. The…

View original post 647 more words

introducing Journal of Media Critiques

I have just joined the Advisory Board and Scientific Committee Board of the Journal of Media Critiques: http://mediacritiques.net/index.php/jmc/user/register

[JMC] is an international peer-reviewed publication in which various critical approaches on media and mass communication come together plus developments in cultural, social and political sphere are discussed. The publisher of JMC is University of Lincoln from UK and now indexed by Advanced Science Index and International Association for Media and Communication Research Open Access Journal Index. JMC also will have DOI numbers to each articles in the next issue to all articles has been published until now. We are going to publish a new special issue by selected papers from an international conference Digital Communication Impact in Istanbul October 2014. And also another special issue will be published with Communication Institute of Greece. JMC is open for guest editors, special issue collaborations and conferences.

I am also on the board of the following:

Yes the list is too long, yes I have to start pruning!

cfps for 2015

START*DUE*CONFERENCETHEMELOCATION
18-Apr-1505-Jan-15chi2015Human Factors in Computing Systems: Crossings-ALTCHISeoul Korea
22-Jun-1506-Jan-15C&CCreativity and cognition: computers art dataGlasgow UK
11-Aug-1516-Jan-15Serious GamesSerious Games/ISSSG2015Singapore
22-May-1419-Jan-15DH 3DDigital Heritage: 3D representationAarhus Denmark
09-Aug-1519-Jan-15SIGGRAPHXroads of discoveryLA USA
14-May-1522-Jan-15digra2015Diversity of play: Games – Cultures – IdentitiesLüneburg Germany
14-Sep-1523-Jan-15Interact 2015Connection.Tradition.InnovationBamberg Germany
03-Jun-1531-Jan-15CGSACanadian Game Studies Association: Capital IdeasOttawa Canda
13-Jul-1501-Feb-15iLRN Prague 2015Intelligent Environment (IE)Prague Czech republic
16-Sep-1501-Feb-15ecaadeReal Time Extending the Reach of ComputationVienna Austria
08-Jul-1527-Feb-15anzca2015rethinking communication space and identityQueenstown NZ
28-Sep-1515-Mar-15Digital Heritage 2015Digital Heritage 2015Granada Spain
18-Jun-1516-Mar-15web3D 201520th International Conference on 3D Web TechnologyCrete Greece
17-Jul-1531-Mar-15isaga2015Hybridizing Simulation and Gaming in the Network SocietyKyoto Japan
16-Sep-1531-Mar-15vs-gamesVirtual Worlds and Games for Serious ApplicationsSkovde Sweden
26-Oct-1531-Mar-15ACM MMACM MultimediaBrisbane Australia
30-Sep-1528-Apr-15icec2015Entertainment ComputingTrondheim Norway
23-Sep-1501-May-15VAMCTVIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY: Museums & Cultural TourismDelphi Greece
27-Nov-1527-May-15ICDHConference on Digital HeritageLondon UK
06-Jun-1626-Jan-16DIS2016Designing Interactive SystemsBrisbane Australia
29-Jun-15?LODLAMLinked Open Data in Libraries Archives and MuseumsSydney Australia
05-Oct-15?MW2015Museums and the Web AsiaMelbourne Australia
28-Oct-15?dch2015Digital Cultural HeritageBerlin Germany
07-May-16?chi2016Computer-Human InteractionSan Jose USA
08-Jun-16?Critical HeritageCritical Heritage Studies: What does heritage mean?Montreal Canada
28-Nov-16?IKUWA06underwater archaeology: celebrating our shared heritagePerth Australia
26-Jun-15invitedNEHHumanities Heritage 3D Visualization: Theory and Practice (8-14/6)Arkansas USA
06-Jun-16invitedNEHHumanities Heritage 3D Visualization: Theory and Practice (6-9 June)LA USA

Critical Heritage

I recently returned from the Critical Heritage conference in Canberra Australia. Interesting group of people and some very good seminars which one could not often guess the quality of judging by the abstract. And there are certainly many books out on heritage now.

But was it sufficiently critical? No I don’t think so. Will the next one be critical enough? Well the next one is in Montreal in 2016 which should turn out to be a great venue to prove me wrong..

Is digital heritage critical enough? You know the answer to that question.

Anyway, here is/was my abstract. The full programme is available online at http://archanth.anu.edu.au/heritage-museum-studies/association-critical-heritage-studies and twitter feed was https://twitter.com/ACHS14Canberra..

 

Critical Theory, Game-Based Learning and Virtual Heritage

Expanding on observations on essential components of games, by Thomas Malone, this paper critiques essential features in prominent theories of serious games, and compares them to prominent features of commercial computer games that could be used for history and heritage-based learning. These theories and components are analyzed in order to develop heuristics that may help future the specific requirements of serious game design for interactive history and digital heritage.

Games as pedagogical tools are indisputably growing in popularity; many cultural heritage projects have harnessed game technology and techniques. The heritage projects may use a game engine or be games in the fuller sense of the word and there have been recent surveys on games appropriate to cultural heritage (Mikovec et al, 2003). As a counter the burgeoning interest in games, there have also been papers warning of game ideas applied to cultural heritage leading to disastrous results (Leader-Elliott, 2003). How can we develop more useful and robust criticism in this field when so many projects are based on large-scale research grants that don’t reward learning from failure? At the very least we need to improve the way we evaluate the learning benefits of virtual heritage. If it is serving the purpose of heritage, then it cannot be only to impress people, it has to motivate but also educate people.

Reference

  • Leader-Elliott, Lyn. (2003). Community heritage interpretation games: A case study from Angaston, South Australia. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 11(2), 161-171.
  • Mikovec, P. Slavik, and J. Zara, “Cultural Heritage, User Interfaces and Serious Games at CTU Prague” in Virtual Systems and Multimedia, 2009. VSMM ’09. 15th International Conference on, 2009, pp. 211-216.

But here is my earlier abstract (which is expanded on in an upcoming book for Ashgate)..

 

Digital Heritage and Social Media: Virtual Heritage and Criticism

I worry that the term virtual heritage is too self-contradictory, I am concerned at the lack of archival knowledge associated with the area, and I am still concerned about the gaps between content, learning and technology in these projects. How can we develop more useful and robust criticism in this field when so many projects are based on large-scale research grants that don’t reward learning from failure? At the very least we need to improve the way we evaluate the learning benefits of virtual heritage. If it is heritage, then it cannot be only to impress people, it has to motivate but also educate people.

Criticism And Gaming

How can we ensure that our critical positions, theories, and arguments about gaming have merit? This is a work-in progress checklist that may help identify weak points in an argument.

Ideally a critical position / argument about computer games should be:

  1. Falsifiable and verifiable. Not such a common feature in the Humanities, and not always relevant, but in my opinion a good argument should be saying where and when it is contestable, and where and when it can be proven or disproven.
  2. Extensible and scalable. We should be able to add to it, extend it, apply it to more research questions and research areas or add it to current research findings or critical frameworks.
  3. Reconfigurable. Components are more useful than take it or leave it positions.
  4. Is useful even if proven wrong in terms of data, findings, methods, or argument (possibly this heuristic should be combined with number 3).
  5. Helpful to the current and future design of computer games, and has potential to forecast future changes in design, deployment or acceptance.
  6. Not in danger of conflating describing computer games with prescribing how computer games should be. Several of the arguments cited in this book appear to make that mistake.
  7. Understands the distinction between methods and methodology, the selection or rejection of methods should always be examined and communicated.
  8. Is lucid and honest about the background, context, and motivations as factors driving it. The parameters of the argument should also be disclosed.
  9. Aiming for validity and soundness of argument.
  10. Attempting to provide in a long-term and accessible way for the data, output, and results of any experiment or survey to be examinable by others.

In virtual heritage publications I often see an extremely broad research question, aims confused with objectives, and a lack of criteria that explains exactly who (or what) determines whether the project or experiment was a success or failure. Care in showing what has been already proven or disproven impresses. But a good research project should go further, explaining why it expects to employ the methods it has chosen, how it can test its ideas, and which audience in particular would find the results significant, and useful.

My suggestion appears to be backed up by the method employed in a recent journal article and survey on serious games (Connolly, Boyle, MacArthur, Hainey, & Boyle, 2012) that determined “high quality” publication by

  1. The appropriateness of the research design for addressing the research question.
  2. The appropriateness of the methods and analysis.
  3. How generalizable the findings were (with respect to sample size and representativeness).
  4. The relevance of the focus of the study.
  5. The extent to which the study findings can be trusted in answering the study question(s).

This last criterion is very important, and easier to address if a research proposal works backwards from the intended final findings to creating the focus, scope and parameters of the research question.

The Next Step

How can the public communicate to each other opinions, memories, stories and reflections of place, but when they are visiting or designing virtual worlds? Tagging both personalizes and contextualizes; yet this use of imaginative, dynamic and creative user-based infill is often not made available in digital media projects. New interfaces and game engines can help the personalization of the environment by an active viewer; ‘tagging’ place could increase engagement and insight to the socio-cultural elements of urban and rural and imaginative spaces, as well as enrich virtual heritage environments.

For example, student projects recreated environments from historical sources using commercially available game engines. Inspired by a scenario called a cultural Turing Test, the game levels recreate not only the tangible surroundings but also rule-based social behavior using impostor-detecting avatars, and by creating communication channels between players in the form of diary entries that record contextual historical and cultural information. The diary entries can take the form of text or there can be dynamic capture of external data such as videos of people inserted into the virtual environment as narrators or collaborators. New technology in the form of biometrics, dynamic sound, dynamic textures, and user—driven geo-data can augment and update static and lifeless virtual environments with communal memories and personal experiences.

Through the game itself, we can also create our own levels that bend space and time. Could we also bend or invert conventional notions of historical narrative? Is it possible to meaningfully do so, and personalize a virtual environment through the interactions that take place within it, even if that interaction initially appears to be destructive? Can we share these meanings within a community, or reveal meanings about a community that is typically removed from us? Given improvements in technology, will these environments improve or hinder a sense of authenticity?

More than just for visualization, though, this technology can also help educate through self-directed learning. Possible features include learning by resource management; learning about social behavior (chat, observation, mimicry); visualization of scale, landscape or climate; depicting varying levels of uncertainty; allowing visitor to filter or reconfigure reconstructions; immersion in the excitement of the times; selecting correct objects or appearance to move about the ‘world’ or to trade or to advance social role or period of time; deciphering codes, language, avoiding traps; and online walkthroughs by expert guides.

References

  • Australia ICOMOS Incorporated. The Burra Charter, The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013. Australia.
  • Connolly, Thomas M., Boyle, Elizabeth A., MacArthur, Ewan, Hainey, Thomas, & Boyle, James M. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59(2), 661-686. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004

cfp: Digital Heritage: 3D representationMay 21-22, 2015 Aarhus Denmark

Digital Heritage is an annual conference hosted by the Centre for Digital Heritage. This year, the conference will be taking place at the newly reopened Moesgaard Museum, Aarhus, Denmark. The theme will be ‘3D representation in knowledge production’ by means of which we wish to enhance and solidify the presence of this new tool within digital heritage research. We are particularly keen to encourage presentations which relate to the scientific application of 3D in Digital Heritage research moving beyond visualization and dissemination.

http://conferences.au.dk/digitalheritage/

Cheap registration, free wine reception, the venue is the new and stunning Moesgaard Museum, what more can you ask for? Oh yes deadline is 19 January 2015. And yes I may be in Europe just before then for a conference, DiGRA in Germany but there are only 200 places and my university won’t open again until early January so you may just have to attend and present for me..:)

PS guess who wrote the application for Aarhus to join the international centre network for digital heritage!

CTIS Symposium Shenzhen China 30 November 2014: The Convergence of Culture and Technology in the Age of Mobile Internet

I presented the below paper (and too many slides) at CTIS Symposium: The Convergence of Culture and Technology in the Age of Mobile Internet.

It was very interesting to see developing cultural media companies in China, and well done Halfback Studios for your partnerships going into this market!
Anyway, here is a taster of the paper I wrote.

Abstract:

The computer paradigm is giving way to the mobile Internet paradigm (Gartner; Lunden; Anthony). Always on, always connected, always linked, always beeping, and always being triggered. Increased mobility suggests lighter and yet more powerful devices, greater contextualization and improved personalization. So what are the implications for cultural experiences in digital worlds?

Unfortunately, in my area of research, virtual heritage (games and virtual reality applied in the services of cultural heritage), the development of technology for the transmission of cultural knowledge in a virtual world is arguably still at a primitive stage. Ideally, digital cultural innovation in this field develops in parallel with technological innovation but projects and commercial applications so far show either a lack of technical flexibility or a paucity of rich cultural interaction and thematic appropriateness. Despite this dour criticism, my paper will put forward a suggestion for how a creative and explorative fusion of new media, the mobile internet, and the entertainment industry could offer new and exciting but so far unrealized opportunities for virtual heritage both in terms of the public and in terms of the classroom.

  1. Convergence Culture

The book Convergence Culture, by Henry Jenkins (Jenkins) is well-written and relevant to our discussion yet some of the arguments are hard to pin down. I believe he makes these provocative claims:

  • Fan Culture is equivalent to Collective Intelligence.
  • Mainstream popular media is a good example of participatory media.
  • There will be no one Black Box through which all media will have to flow.
  • Old media does not die.

The term Convergence Culture is confusing. In Jenkins’ introduction (2) and his glossary (282) convergence is:

“A word that describes technological, industrial, cultural, and social changes in the ways media circulates within our culture…the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, the search for new structures of media financing… the migratory behavior of media audiences who would go almost anywhere in search of the kind of entertainment experiences they want.”

Yet Convergence Culture is introduced as (283): “A shift in the logic by which culture operates, emphasizing the flow of content across media channels.” And even more surprisingly, divergence is (284): “part of the same process of media change” as convergence (at least according to de Sola Pool). So does cultural convergence actually just mean the tides and shift of media changes? Part of the confusion can be traced to Jenkins continually weaving trends and sub-definitions of Convergence Culture (and convergence per se) throughout the book.

Most importantly, Jenkins avoids discussing the importance of technological change in Convergence Culture because he is more interested in Fan Culture and the media industry, but this is a fundamental point of Ithiel de Sola Pool’s Technologies of Freedom. It was de Sola Pool who Jenkins (10) labels “the prophet of media convergence” because the former spoke about the “convergence of modes”, the increasing trend for media content to travel on non-proprietary and non-technologically required channels. In other words (10): “’…the one-to-one relationship that used to exist between a medium and its use is eroding.’” It is true that de Sola Pool argued that the media should become less dependent on the medium, but de Sola Pool still thought certain types of technology (dispersed, accessible, decentralized) were required for the freedom that he seeks. Likewise, Lévy argued for technological innovation (Lévy 39-55).

Jenkins also quotes Gitelman (Gitelman 7) who defines media as “socially realised structures of communication, where structures include both technological forms and their associated protocols.” So although de Sota Pool, Lévy and Gitelman, are cited for their observations on technology, they do not seem to have persuaded Jenkins about the importance of technology, culture, or the associated cultural protocols. This is in part because Jenkins wishes to refute the technocentric evangelism of Negroponte and others. He agrees that digitalization was important, but not that it is inevitable or even stable (11). Given Jenkins’ downplaying of technology, I suggest Jenkins is really talking about Lévy’s “convergence of modes” for transmedia audiences and their relationship to each other and to the media industries. So while the book title is simple and clear, it is not accurate, it does not express clearly the intention of the book’s actual focus on transmedia audiences. And the role and nature of culture itself is never clearly defined, which is a problematic issue I will return to later in this essay.

cfp: Digital Heritage 2015, 28 Sep-2 October, Granada Spain

Digital Heritage 2015, 28 September – 2 October @ Granada, Spain

http://digitalheritage2015.org/

Digital Heritage 2015, jointly with the affiliated Conferences and exhibitions which are held under one common management and registration, invite you to participate and contribute to the second international forum for the dissemination and exchange of cutting-edge scientific knowledge on theoretical, generic and applied areas of digital heritage. A federated event of the leading scientific meetings in information technology for heritage, the Congress will bring VSMM, Eurographics GCH, Arqueologica2.0, Archaeovirtual, Digital Art Week and special events from CAA, CIPA, Space2Place, ICOMOS ICIP, and multiple others together in one venue with a prestigious joint publication. A ground-breaking public display of cutting edge digital heritage projects will also grace the conference venue at two museums: the museum Parque de las Ciencias de Andalucía and the museum of the Memory of Andalusia.

Important Dates

LengthAbstract (up to 300 words)Deadline for SubmissionNotification of AcceptanceCamera Ready Receipt
Full Papersup to 8 pages15th March1st April1st June15th July
Short Papersup to 4 pages26th April3rd May17th June15th July
Special Sessions
Tutorialsup to 8 pages15th March1st April1st June15th July
Workshopsup to 8 pages15th March1st April1st June15th July
Panelsup to 8 pages15th March1st April1st June15th July
Exhibitions & Demosup to 3 pages12th April19th April5th June15th July

CFP: Trans-Atlantic Dialogues on Cultural Heritage: Heritage, Tourism and Traditions

Conference announcement

Call for Papers, 15.12.14 FOR 13-16 July 2015, Liverpool UK

Trans-Atlantic dialogues on cultural heritage began as early as the voyages of Leif Ericson and Christopher Columbus and continue through the present day. Each side of the Atlantic offers its own geographical and historical specificities expressed and projected through material and immaterial heritage. However, in geopolitical terms and through everyday mobilities, people, objects and ideas flow backward and forward across the ocean, each shaping the heritage of the other, for better or worse, and each shaping the meanings and values that heritage conveys. Where, and in what ways are these trans-Atlantic heritages connected? Where, and in what ways are they not? What can we learn by reflecting on how the different societies and cultures on each side of the Atlantic Ocean produce, consume, mediate, filter, absorb, resist, and experience the heritage of the other?

This conference is brought to you by the Ironbridge International Institute for Cultural Heritage (IIICH), University of Birmingham and the Collaborative for Cultural Heritage Management and Policy (CHAMP), University of Illinois and offers a venue for exploring three critical interactions in this trans-Atlantic dialogue: heritage, tourism and traditions. North America and Europe fashioned two dominant cultural tropes from their powerful and influential intellectual traditions, which have been enacted in Central/South America and Africa, everywhere implicating indigenous cultures. These tropes are contested and linked through historical engagement and contemporary everyday connections. We ask: How do heritages travel? How is trans-Atlantic tourism shaped by heritage? To what extent have traditions crossed and re-crossed the Atlantic? How have heritage and tourism economies emerged based upon flows of peoples and popular imaginaries?

The goal of the conference is to be simultaneously open-ended and provocative. We welcome papers from academics across a wide range of disciplines including anthropology, archaeology, art history, architecture, business, communication, ethnology, heritage studies, history, geography, landscape architecture, literary studies, media studies, museum studies, popular culture, postcolonial studies, sociology, tourism, urban studies, etc. Topics of interest to the conference include, but are not limited to, the following:

· The heritage of trans-Atlantic encounters

· Travelling intangible heritages

· Heritage flows of popular culture

· Re-defining heritage beyond the postcolonial

· The heritage of Atlantic crossings

· World Heritage of the Atlantic periphery

· Rooting and routing heritage

· Community and Nation on display

· Visualising the Trans-Atlantic world

Abstracts of 300 words with full contact details should be sent as soon as possible but no later than 15th December 2014 to ironbridge

CFP: Entertainment Computing, Elsevier: Special Issue on Entertainment in Serious Games and Entertaining Serious Purposes

Entertainment Computing, Elsevier: Special Issue on Entertainment in Serious Games and Entertaining Serious Purposes

Following the successful one-day workshop on “Entertainment in Serious Games and Entertaining Serious Purposes” (30/09/14) held at the International Conference on Entertainment Computing (ICEC 2014), in Sydney, Australia, we invite submissions to be considered for publication in a Special Issue of the journal of Entertainment Computing, Elsevier. Please refer to outline, instructions for submission, timelines and submission deadlines, and topics of interest, below.

Outline

The serious games community rightly argues that there’s more to serious games than entertainment, and restricting the focus to entertainment “seriously undersells its potential” (Jenkins 2006). Indeed, while a consensus definition of serious games still eludes us, serious games are often described as games designed for a primary purpose other than pure entertainment.

However, entertainment obviously has an important role to play, for example in contributing to the motivational and engaging qualities of serious games and making learning or serious elements more palatable. Why would anyone want to voluntarily play a serious game again and again for extended periods of time if it’s not entertaining? Furthermore, discussion around what is, and what is not, primary or secondary importance is not always helpful and can be problematic – because arguing that serious purpose is primary rejects many games and interactions whose entertaining element is the purpose – where purpose and entertainment are inextricably and synergistically linked. So arguments or distinctions along the lines of what’s more important, the serious purpose or entertainment, become blurred.

In addition, gameplay and interactions exhibiting this synergistic nature typically identify good design. Where entertainment and serious purpose meet, where purpose doesn’t overshadow entertainment (and vice versa) and ideally where players want to play voluntarily for hours on end, again and again, and in their own time.

Similar arguments are used with learning and development where learning with games is fun (e.g. Gee 2007). Other more obvious examples can be found in exergames and dance games where the mechanic of working out is entertaining and entertainment is a workout; or with interactive art and installations that provide a message or an experience that is entertaining. Similarly, other examples might include well-designed role-playing, interactive storytelling and performance where taking part in historical events, encounters with different social and cultural structures, or facing moral and ethical dilemmas and situations can be entertaining.

In this respect, entertainment and associated experiences can mean different things to different people and can involve elements or mixes of gameplay and interaction that is fun and exciting, through stimulating and thought provoking, to difficult, scary, or darker experiences that are pleasurable (Marsh and Costello 2012).

As more and more interactive entertainments (games, diversions and brain teasers) appear on social media and networking sites, it’s not difficult to foresee these offerings increasingly extending to serious purposes (learning, training and well-being); and in doing so perhaps signal an increased confidence in overcoming the failure surrounding the introduction of Edutainment in the 1990’s.

In this Special Issue of the journal Entertainment Computing we wish to highlight the importance of entertainment (in its various forms) in serious games irrespective of supporting technologies/platforms. The objective of this Special Issue is to bring together research, reviews, case studies, as well as details and experiences in the development of serious games and interactive media associated with entertainment in serious games and the synergy of serious purpose and entertainment in interactions and gameplay – where entertainment is the serious purpose and also where the synergy of purpose and entertainment identifies good design.

Topics of Interest

In particular, we seek submissions that focus on, or address (but not restricted to) the following topics:

  • Theory & Discussion: synergies between entertainment and serious purpose(s). What is, and what is not entertainment? And what can entertaining serious purpose encapsulate?
  • Mechanics, Mechanisms & Devices: creating/supporting synergies between entertainment and serious purpose.
  • Design & Development: design for synergy; and where entertainment meets purpose – identifies good design.
  • Analysis & Assessment: methods and approaches to evaluate synergy e.g. telemetry in-game analysis.
  • Ethics: can entertainment trivialize a serious, sensitive or difficult topic?
  • Acting and performing in games, simulations, virtual heritage, and documentary games – be part of historical events, experience different social and cultural structures; or encounter moral dilemmas & situations.
  • Novel experimental games, environments and interactions e.g. persuasive, pervasive, mixed and augmented realities; interactive storytelling.
  • Exergames, Interactive Art & Diversions: where the workout or the interchanges provide entertaining serious purposes.

Instructions for Submission

Your manuscript should be 10 or more pages in pdf format. Include all authors’ names, affiliations and contact details. The submission website for the journal of Entertainment Computing is located at: http://ees.elsevier.com/entcom/default.asp

Please ensure your manuscript is correctly identified for inclusion in this special issue by selecting SI: Serious Entertainment when you reach the “Article Type” step in the submission process. New authors to Entertainment Computing are required to pre-register before submission. All submissions will be reviewed by experts in areas associated with serious games and the topics of interest and include ICEC 2014 workshop organizers of Entertainment in Serious Games and Entertaining Serious Purposes, and members of the IFIP TC14.8 Working Group on Serious Games.

Important Dates

Submission Deadline 31 January 2015

Acceptance / Rejection 31 May 2015

Revision Submission 31 August 2015

Publication October / November 2015

Guest Editors

Tim Marsh, Griffith Film School, Queensland College of Art, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.

Erik Champion, Curtin University, Australia.

Helmut Hlavacs, University of Vienna, Austria.

Contact organizers at: seriousexperience [at] gmail.com

References

Henry Jenkins. 2006. Getting Serious About Games. http://henryjenkins.org/2006/07/getting_serious_about_games.html

John Paul Gee. 2007. Good Video Games Plus Good Learning, Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York.

Tim Marsh & Brigid Costello. 2012. Experience in serious games: between positive and serious experience, Serious Games Development & Applications, SGDA2012, Bremen, Germany.

http://www.seriousgames.sg/Papers/SeriousExperience_MarshCostello_SGDA2012.pdf

Call for Papers, Game History Annual Symposium 2015 Edition

Game History Annual Symposium: 2015 Edition
History of Gender in Games

Bilingual Conference (French/English)
June 26-27, Grande Bibliothèque (Montreal, Canada)
Website : www.sahj.ca<http://www.sahj.ca><http://www.sahj.ca>

Since the beginning of the 1990s, many scholars have shown concern for the plethora of gender stereotypes and sexist narratives in video games, as well as for the lower percentage of female players and of female game designers. Over time, the solutions advanced to avoid sexism and to bridge the gaps between men and women followed three different trends.

First Wave of Game Feminism
Considering the growing importance of technological literacy during the 1990s, many were promoting the creation of computer games specifically designed for girls. Even though these games risk naturalizing gender binaries, it seemed more realistic to transform the game industry one step at a time, by creating spaces where young girls feel comfortable to play. Simultaneously, groups like Quake Grrl proved that female players can enjoy beating boys at their own games.

Second Wave of Game Feminism
Between 2000 and 2010, the number of female players increased, but the rarity of women designers, the marginalization of professional female players, and the proliferation of stereotypical avatars persisted. While the conception of gender as socially constructed was spreading, more voices called for gender-neutral games. Some scholars also surfed on this “second wave” of game feminism by turning their attention to the contextual factors that explain gender disparity within gaming practices. Such discussions on gender in games, however, remained mostly centered around white heterosexual women.

Third Wave of Game Feminism
After two decades of game feminism, many scholars are now shifting their focus toward alternative representations of gender, LGBTQ themes, as well as self-reflexivity, diversity, sexuality, and masculinity in video games. Inspired by the most recent developements in gender and queer studies, more researchers adopt an intersectional approach to gender/race/class/age, or a postmodern approach to gender as something that we “do” and that is open to exploration on an individual basis, thus initiating a “third wave” of game feminism.

Conference
Presented in partnership with TAG (Technoculture, Arts and Games, Concordia University), CMS|W (Comparative Media Studies | Writing, MIT), Canada Research Chair In Game Studies & Design (Concordia University), LUDOV (Laboratory for the Documentation and Observation of Video Games, UdeM), Homo Ludens (UQAM), and BAnQ (Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec), this second edition of the Game History Annual Symposium will not only provide opportunities to review the history of gender in games, but also to document the emergence of a “third wave” of game feminism. Professionals and scholars from any and all disciplines are invited to submit a proposal in French or in English that would fit in one of these four tracks:

Track 1: Game Feminism
Invited speakers: Suzanne De Castell and Jennifer Jenson, co-founders of Feminists in Games (FIG)

How have studies of gender in games evolved in the past decades? Have scholars found ways to work on this topic without essentializing gender differences and homogenizing the category “woman?” How can we describe the third wave of game feminism in comparison with the first and the second ones? How can studies of gender in computer games benefit from studies of gender in “traditional games” (role-playing games, board games, dolls, etc.)?

Track 2: Game Representations
Invited speaker: Adrienne Shaw, author of Gaming at the Edge: Sexuality and Gender at the Margins of Gamer Culture (University of Minnesota Press, 2015)

How have gender representations in games changed? What similarities and differences can be observed between those found in computer games and those found in “traditional” games? Are stereotypical protagonists still pervasive, or there is more room for nuanced, androgynous, and queer avatars? Are there more serious games, indie games, or machinima that challenge stereotypes, educate players on gender issues or question heteronormativity?

Track 3: Game Design
Invited speaker: Brie Code, Lead programmer of Child of Light (Ubisoft, 2014)

How has the participation of women as players and developers transformed game design? Has the game industry created new genres that are more appealing to women? Has it incorporated, in traditional genres, new elements that attract female players? Does the evolution of game design reflect a change of values regarding gender equality or a better tolerance of diversity? Do computer games provide more freedom than “traditional” games in terms of gameplay?

Track 4: Game Culture
Invited speaker: Todd Harper, author of The Culture of Digital Fighting Games: Performance and Practice (Routledge, 2013)

How have gender dynamics evolved in game communities? Have those communities opened up to female players and gaymers? To what extend are sexism and sexual harassment still pervasive in geek culture? Are there new pockets of resistance? How and in what areas has the game industry changed its marketing to reach wider audiences than the core young male demographic?

Abstract Submission
Proposals of 800 words (plus bibliography) should be sent to GameHistoryMTL<mailto:GameHistoryMTL><mailto:GameHistoryMTL<mailto:GameHistoryMTL>> before January 11, 2015. The proposals should be anonymous, include a title, and provide a clear synopsis for a 20-minute presentation. In your email, please specify which track you want to be part of, provide your name, affiliation, and a short biography. Submissions will be reviewed by members of the scientific committee. A double-blind peer review publication project will be launched after the conference.

Conference chairs for the 2015 Edition
Mia Consalvo, Professor at Concordia University
Gabrielle Trépanier-Jobin, Postdoctoral Researcher at MIT

Cultural Events

• Screening of the movie Gaming in Color (2014)
• Exhibition “Gender in Games”

• Closing Reception

• Montreal International Jazz Festival

Cfp: International Conference : Creativity and Cognition Glasgow School of Art : June 22-26, 2015

International Conference : Creativity and Cognition Glasgow School of Art : June 22-26, 2015

Tom Maver, Conference Chair, invites you to participate in the Creativity and Cognition 2015 International Conference sponsored by the Computer Human Interface Special Interest Group (SGICHI) of the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM). This biennial conference series explores the interaction between the emerging information technologies and all aspects of the arts.

The Call for papers, art works, workshops, posters, etc can be found at : cc15.cityofglasgowcollege.ac.uk

Advanced Challenges in Theory and Practice in 3D Modeling of Cultural Heritage Sites

This NEH Advanced Topics in the Digital Humanities Summer Institute, co-hosted by Arkansas State University and UCLA, will consider advanced problems and issues facing scholars working with 3D content with an emphasis on the end user experience. This institute will take place over two consecutive summers. In 2015, participants will gather for a week at ASU to discuss key issues and challenges with institute faculty, and define research questions that they will explore in the subsequent academic year. In 2016, participants will present their findings at a three-day symposium to be held at UCLA.

Applications are due March 16, 2015.

The application process will be posted by November 1, 2014.

Submissions are encouraged from:
Scholars with research or teaching projects that would benefit from advanced discussion of theoretical issues related to 3D content,
In-service educators interested in pedagogical applications for 3D content across humanities disciplines and grade levels,
Library, museum, and publishing professionals investigating or using 3D content in installations or born-digital publications, and
Technologists involved with interactive 3D computer graphics, educational games, or dissemination platforms.

Faculty:
Alyson A. Gill, Institute Co-Director, Arkansas State University
Lisa M. Snyder, Institute Co-Director, UCLA
Ear Zow Digital, Curtin University, Australia
John R. Clarke, University of Texas, Austin
Diane Favro, UCLA
Maurizio Forte, Duke University
Bernard Frischer, Indiana University
Ruth Hawkins, Arkansas State University
Christopher Johanson, UCLA
Angel David Nieves, Hamilton College

Schedule:
Participants will spend the first week (June 8-14, 2015) at the University of Arkansas-Jonesboro campus, and then reconvene the following summer at UCLA for a three-day symposium (June 6-9, 2016).

The Reading Brain in the Digital Age

Have been saying this for years, don’t use multimedia and VR to replicate text!

Museums | Digital | Research | Learning

Paper v screens? Is one better than the other or do they both have a role to play? This 2013 Scientific American article, The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: Why Paper Still Beats Screens, asks does the reading process of a digital or mobile text cause our brains to respond differently? Early studies pointed to reading text on paper as a better way to digest information, whereas current studies are not so conclusive.

What they found is that the act of reading may be better for comprehension, especially when navigating long texts, as the book provides a tactile experience. Screens may “drain” more of our brains causing people to approach a digital text with a mind that is not open to learning.

The article reminds us that humans are not ‘born with brain circuits dedicated to reading’ – it is a skill that we learn and hone throughout…

View original post 501 more words

Why I’m fed up with digital projects (and why I’m not): a rant

Ditto!

martha henson: blog

I’ve felt a little rant bubbling up in me over the last few months: a sense of disquiet about digital, a jaded annoyance about wasted time and resources and opportunities squandered. Today I was reminded about an old project that was the epitome of digital idiocy, one of those thoughtless knee-jerk “we must have an app!” projects that make me want to throw a toddler tantrum, kicking and screaming “but who is it for?” until someone agrees to at least do a bit of audience research or string together a minimally viable set of objectives. And that reminder seems to have brought it all to the surface, so here goes.

I am fed up of seeing people and organisations produce digital rubbish: poor apps, clunky games, badly designed microsites and other half-arsed online, mobile and technological systems and whatnots. I am fed up of people who are smart about digital…

View original post 892 more words

Call for Presentation Proposals Immersive Learning Research Network 1st Meeting & Virtual Symposium:

Call for Presentation Proposals-
Immersive Learning Research Network 1st Meeting & Virtual Symposium: iLRN Corvallis, Oregon 2014 Meetup

“Immersed in the Future, Together: Scholarship, Experience, and Community”

13th – 15th November 2014
Corvallis, OR, USA

Oregon State University is pleased to announce the ILRN Corvallis, Oregon 2014 Meetup and Virtual Symposium. This regional meeting and virtual symposium will feature expert researchers, theorists, practitioners, and developers showcasing projects and products that offer “immersive” learning experiences enhanced by digital technology. Immersive environments include virtual worlds, video games, augmented reality applications, and other ways to give people a sense of “Being There”. The Oregon meeting and worldwide virtual symposium will be the first official event of the globally represented Immersive Learning Research Network (IRLN).

The Oregon 2014 Meetup and ILRN Committees invite all immersive learning professionals from across the disciplines to propose a presentation for this Corvallis event, either in person or virtually via the Internet.

Proposal acceptances will be communicated on a first-come, first-served basis starting September 10th. If your proposal is accepted, you will be provided with the ability to schedule a presentation time that is convenient to your time zone and work schedule. Early proposal submission and acceptance will give you the most flexibility for scheduling your presentation. The deadline to submit presentation proposals for guaranteed space is October 13th; proposals received after that date, up until a final deadline of October 27th, will be accepted on a space-available basis. For presentation requirements, please visit: http://immersivelrn.org/ilrn-corvallis-oregon-2014-meetup

Note: Presenters do not need to be active ILRN members. However, everyone is encouraged to join for free before January 1st, 2015 when membership application fees may apply. See http://immersivelrn.org/ for information on joining the Network.

The details of this Call for Presentation Proposals are below and also available online: http://immersivelrn.org/ilrn-corvallis-oregon-2014-meetup

Meetup Theme

As the inaugural event for the Immersive Learning Research Network, the Oregon Meetup Committee believe it fitting to emphasize the communal interest in gathering expertise from across the disciplines, the need to meaningfully connect research to practice, and the critical necessity for people to have mutual experiences and frames of reference. These are hallmarks of meaningful Communities of Practice.

The theme for the IRLN Corvallis, Oregon 2014 Meetup is “Immersed in the Future, Together: Scholarship, Experience, and Community”.

The ILRN Oregon Meetup Committee will give preference to those proposals of Immersive Learning presentations that feature:

– Attempts to substantively bridge multiple kinds of expertise to generate a sense of “immersion” (e.g. psychology, pedagogy, architecture, computer science, etc);
– Sharing resources and visions for Immersive Learning researchers and practitioners to use in developing a common future.
– Sharing technical expertise on creation of Immersive Learning experiences that is not readily available for free elsewhere;
– Featuring design- or evidence-based reasoning for learning within the design of an immersive experience;
– Explicitly develops capacity within immersive learning experiences to form community OR focuses on the community that forms as a result of efforts to create immersive learning experiences;
– Providing Open Educational Resources or open source possibilities for developing Immersive Learning to everyone – to encourage community and sharing.
– Articulating conceptual frameworks or definitions for specific kinds of Immersive Learning expertise that may be of possible benefit or use by others. – Other ideas? Pitch them to the Oregon 2014 Meetup committee!

ILRN Corvallis, Oregon 2014 Meetup and Virtual Symposium Submission format

Presentation proposals must include:

– A concise title.
– The names and affiliations of the presenters; please not whether as part of the MEETUP (i.e. in person presentation) or part of the VIRTUAL SYMPOSIUM (i.e. remote presentation).
– Proposed duration of the presentation – 30 minutes or 50 minutes. The organizers may exceptionally consider well justified longer presentations.
– Preference for a date (November 13, 14, or 15); but, the proposal must not be conditioned on the presentation date, since it is likely that some will not get their preferred date.
– A statement of the presentation’s objective/goals related to Immersive Learning.
– A statement detailing: Why is the presentation topic important? Why is the presentation timely? How is it relevant to Immersive Learning Research and/or Practice?
– A description of the presentation format: how many invited speakers, type of activities (e.g., video overview, live demonstration, live interactive participation, short paper presentation, invited discussion, link to papers, posters, etc.), and an approximate timeline. The keys to a successful ILRN presentation are twofold: Relevant Audience Engagement & Connections to Quality Learning
– A short bio of the presenters, including a description of their qualifications relative to the topic area, and past experience in related conference or research meetings.

Proposal Submission

Complete proposals will have incorporate the above criteria and should be written in English at no more than three pages in length (10pt with reasonable margins) and must be in PDF or plain unformatted text (.txt).

Workshop proposals should be submitted through: http://immersivelrn.org/ilrn-corvallis-oregon-2014-meetup-submission/

Venue

ILRN Corvallis, Oregon 2014 Meetup and Virtual Symposium will take place between 13th and 16th of November 2014 in Corvallis, Oregon on the Oregon State University campus. Visitors may fly into Portland International Airport (PDX) or Eugene Mahlon-Sweet Airport (EUG). More information on: http://immersivelrn.org/ilrn-corvallis-oregon-2014-meetup

Oregon Meeting Organization

General Chair: Jonathon Richter, University of Montana, USA
Local Chair: Jon Dorbolo, Oregon State University, USA
Program Co-Chair: Monica Marlo (to be confirmed)
Program Co-Chair: Kimmy Hescock, Oregon State University, USA Special Events Chair: Eric Smith (to be confirmed)

iLRN Advisory Board

Jonathon Richter, University of Montana, USA
Jon Dorbolo, Oregon State University, USA
Michael Gardner, University of Essex, UK
Jennifer B. Elliot, University of North Carolina, USA
Christian Gütl, Graz University of Technology, Austria
Carlos Delgado Kloos, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain François Garnier, École Nationale Supériore des Arts Décoratifs, France Béatrice Hasler, University of Barcelona, Spain
Pasi Mattila, Center for Internet Excellence, Finland
Colin Allison, University of St Andrews, UK

Publicity & Public Relations: Anasol Pena-Rios, University of Essex, UK

About the iLRN Meetings and Virtual Symposia Series

Immersive Researchers and Developers gather and showcase their work, gather to form community, connect with experts around the world, support one another and generate CAPACITY to reach the high level of quality results that is demonstrated formally at the iLRN Annual Conference. The 1st Annual iLRN Conference is to be held in Prague, Czech Republic in July, 2015. Prior to then, iRLN members around the world may host Regional Meetings and/or Virtual Symposia. Each Regional Meeting &/or Worldwide Symposia generally has a topic or theme. These meetings serve to build capacity for attendees as well as to generate content for the online iLRN presence and materials (newsletters, announcements, etc). The activities and products of these Regional Meetings generates content and stimulates dialogue throughout the iLRNetwork online. These meetings are intended to help create community in local/regional/national areas and connect them with people throughout the world through the virtual symposia.

About iLRN

The vision of the immersive Learning Research Network (iLRN) is to develop a comprehensive research and outreach agenda that encompasses the breadth and scope of learning potentialities, affordances and challenges of immersive learning environments. To achieve this, the iLRN mission is to invite and organize scientists, practitioners, organizations, and innovators across the disciplines to explore, describe, and apply the optimal use of immersive worlds and environments for educational purposes. Further the conference, meetings, and virtual symposia aim to build capacity to explain and demonstrate how these immersive learning environments best work using a variety of rigorous, systematic, and meaningful research methods and outreach strategies.

To join the Immersive Learning Research Network or find out more about events and other initiatives, visit http://immersivelrn.org/